[Prognostications About Future Poll]

On 7/9/2017 at 1:55 PM, Mishi2 said:

Geopolitics is probably one of the most complex and dynamic of the sciences, which is why I think we are going to have to go see what happened in in earlier situations like this in order to guess what might happen.

I think the presentation on the Fall of the Roman Empire smashed the nail on the head not only because Mr.Molyneux highlighted how earily familiar the political state of the west is, but also because exactly like today, the eastern part of civilisation has a stark resemlance to the old Eastern Roman Empire, which did not fall for another 1000 years.
If this parallel is true, and if we count the Expansion of the EU (2004AD) as the establishment of the Roman Empire (27BC), then we are actually right around the equivalent of the 10BC mark. The policies align pretty accurately, the state of the superstate is also similar in its level of integrity. The good news is that the time has not yet come for the fecal matter to really hit the fan. The bad news is that this is only the beginning of the end. 490 years to go.

So if the example of the two roman empires is any clue, then we can speculate that it will get worse, then much worse, and then the Roman Pontiff will work out a way to convert the barbarians, and only then will it start getting better. 

I'd argue we have more in common with the end of the Roman Republic in terms of likely outcomes, which gives some optimism as the Roman Empire's first 200 years was actually considered by many the best time to be alive until America in the 20th century, with all kinds of good stuff outlined in the Fall of Rome presentation.

The EU could be argued similarly to the decline of the American republic. However I don't think we're so close as to see them fall within the next 10 years, but then again who knows? I don't know all the players of the world stage and I doubt anyone does as I'm sure quite a few are hidden either in plain sight or hidden altogether. A lot can change in 10 years; perhaps the crap will reverse itself enough to prolong the era for another couple decades, or it won't and instead escalate into armed conflict in the next half century. 

On 7/9/2017 at 1:55 PM, Mishi2 said:

If we are talking about only the next 20 years, then I think the civil war option is the most likely. But you know, 20 years is a very short time in the history of cultures.

It's also worth noting the potency of technology to effectively "shrink" the time it takes for "things to happen" and for "things to be suppressed/exposed".

I am sure if nothing changes armed conflict is inevitable. However something is always changing and therefore some grain somewhere is going to tip something over leading to another new factor to be considered. Like Donald Trump. Who saw him coming? Maybe his family and friends, but that's probably it. His term is not even a year old; who knows what'll happen and how it'll affect the West as a whole. Similarly we should consider the criminality of Prime Minister Trudeau and other treasonous heads-of-state and how they'll conflict with more nationalistic leaders like Putin and Trump. 

So much to consider, I think I was being arrogant in assuming I could come up with most or all possible outcomes in one poll.  I think it's safe to say the Muslims will eventually be thrown out; the real question is, who's next? And what will the costs be against us? Who'll be saved? Etc. etc. So much to consider and so many things can happen. Although we can make broad predictions based on history, we can't say for sure which prediction will come true nor how much of that prediction will come true. People as individuals may be largely predictable, however the rare and quality individuals (including intelligent wreckers and traitors) throw a monkey wrench into any prognostication I might have. Anything could happen. 

[Marx Labor Theory of Value supports property rights]

On 7/6/2017 at 2:47 PM, RamynKing said:

there's nothing specifically immoral about the doctrine you've laid out.

this scenario is perfectly plausible right now, under western governments. a labor-minded individual can go out and mine some ore, make some metal, build some machines etc. no boss needed.

but if you tell a commie this, that they already have a nonviolent path to their workers' paradise, they will claim that it can't work now, because the capitalists got here first and seized all the resources.

you could try to then point to small startup opportunities they might be able to access, but they will respond that it's too small, and even if they do manage a start, the cappies will then smash the threat with all their power.

so basically, there is no discussion to be had along this line.

also, i don't think that convincing them that property rights aren't bad will help much either.  they may have cognitive dissonance here. they believe that property is wrong only because they don't have the property they want. some of them might even accurately imagine the chaotic, primal world we'd get without property, and they accept it out of misplaced spite for humanity. 

i'm always interested in possible lines of argument to convert commies to cappies. but a lot of them are probably just mentally ill and not actually interested in better philosophy.

 

Well, I used to be a Communist back when I was indoctrinated in high school, and eventually I grew out of that into AnCap.

However I have to concur that the rationale for being a communist is far more personal and twisted than a matter of reason. The rationalization is merely an excuse to hide the underlying crazy.

[Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?]

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Why not also allow abortion if the woman is under lets say 16 because the child will also have a shit life. What if the mother is a drug addict? Then abortion should be ok too. Or just really poor? What about date rape, not violent rape. What about condom stealthing situation? Someone needs to decide the specifics of your "rule". 

Sure, since I'd like to purge our society of low IQ degenerates and wastrels. However without a welfare state most of those cases, if not all, will either change and become super rare or die off, therefore a free society is the ultimate and cheapest eugenics program because nature is against degeneracy.

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

So you believe there should be some kind of master planner or government to enforce subjective reasons for which murder is allowed?

No, because I fear being wrong could lead to unintended consequences. Also, the free market and no welfare state= natural and steady purge of deadbeats and degenerates with a promotion of quality and K-selection. I don't need a gun to make people be moral, I just need the guys with guns to stop pointing them at me to subsidize immorality. Social morals are natural to White and East Asians, therefore no outside impetus is necessary for us to behave justly, and the free market can create its own prisons and nooses for the NAP violating criminals, and that doesn't have to include baby killers since a K-selected majority would find that so repulsive it wouldn't be worth making illegal; it's social suicide. 

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Why should your opinion be law? Are you an expert in moral philosophy? A medical doctor specializing in pregnancy? What makes your opinion any different than every single other person in the worlds opinion?

I don't. I'm a free market guy with a big mouth. Therefore I think most of what I said can and will be handled in a state of freedom/

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I guess your mom didn't say you were special from your comment in your post... but obviously someone did.

Backwards, my single mom said I was special and I said I was powerless and without ability to fix what I saw growing up, and therefore grew very hungry for power and influence. While I can't say I fully grew out of it, I can say I know better than to assume I can fix the world with an army. Well, maybe I could; just by following Pinochet's example. However that's very unlikely, since I am no militarist nor do I consider myself able enough to be a career officer. 

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Why are you so special such that everyone should defer to your judgement? And if your opinion is so great, why can't you convince everyone to follow it voluntarily?

I could argue being smarter than 99% of the population is why arguments are pointless, but then why would I be arguing rather than plotting and shooting? In reality, I realize I am a layman at best in most areas of interest to me, therefore I defer to experts when and where I can. If I ever did become a dictator, I'd be very laisezz faire and delegate to experts. However, such is fantasy. Instead I will simply argue my points and attempt to sway some minds, so that when the inevitable civil war comes the right ideas win out. 

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Ideas so good they need violence to make them mandatory. lol

Ever been or grew up in a Multikult? The denizens there aren't smart enough to live without a whip, and therefore should be far and away from a free society where they'd only cause trouble. 

Although I agree that an idea that requires force beyond ostracism to maintain are destined to fail, I do think the use of force to make an idea possible is righteous. A free society will not come peacefully, but with a storm. 

[Childhood Trauma]

On 7/1/2017 at 11:10 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Check out Trauma Release Exercises (TRE)

https://traumaprevention.com/what-is-tre/

 

It's a cheap and super effective method that does not involve talk therapy to allow the body to deal with trauma. There is a list of certified providers on the site all over the world: https://traumaprevention.com/tre-provider-list/

I've been doing it for about a year now and it is amazing. Specifically, it goes to the root of the issue: as humans, we have a "trauma mode" and a "normal mode". These modes are biochemically different--there is literally a different chemistry in the body. The therapy allows the body to switch from trauma to normal mode by affecting the biochemistry. This is SUPER important because it can address things which cannot be talked about, particularly when it comes to abuse received as infants, as someone has no memory to be able to talk about it. For example, I spoke with my TRE provider about being circumcised--there isn't really a way talk therapy can address it.

I have to say, you answered the wrong question. I didn't ask about myself and self-knowledge, but how someone under given scenarios before the era of therapists and wide-spread psychological study could get help, what kind of people they'd be before they seek help, and possibly after. 

Though a tangent, I actually did speak with my therapist about such personal and painful issues, I have to say mine seems better than most given he actually is helpful and is a lot like Stef with combativeness and forthrightness. 

[Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?]

8 hours ago, Meister said:

Abortion is manslaughter, not necessarily murder.

Those are two different things.

Isn't that a distinction without purpose? 

5 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

How is killing a "child" from rape not murder but euthanasia? A child from rape is no different than a child from normal relations. I am assuming you only want to allow abortion from rape to spare the mother... in which case that is proof that the mothers feelings and autonomy is more important than a child. Still not logically consistent.

Well, I have about three reasons.

1: How the heck can a woman raise the spawn of rape? If she can, she's crazy and will impart her craziness on the spawn. If she can't, the poor spawn will grow up bitter and possibly become a rapist like dear old dad. I suppose the opposite could occur, but when a woman sperm jacks a man, I don't think she intends to abort him/her shortly after. 

2: I want to genes of rapists and other low-lives cut from being able to survive. Genetically, we are programmed to do whatever to reproduce. I don't want rape to become "viable", therefore I want all spawn of rape to be executed/euthanized. 

3: Growing up with a single mom who hates me and wants me dead; can't imagine a worse scenario to grow up in, save battlefields, Sparta, and Africa. 

[Why not do the obvious... in regards to marriage]

On 7/6/2017 at 11:32 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

That would be a lot of effort to prove to me that you're not serious about the marriage.

...what? How did you draw that conclusion? Nothing in which great cautions are taken isn't serious. I can't imagine how taking a shield when rumors of hidden knife-bearers are prevalent would be a sign of lack of seriousness. If anything, exactly the opposite. 

[Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?]

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Your exceptions break your argument. If all infanticide is murder, even in situations of rape, you would be a murderer. Change your logical reasoning, yours is not a good argument as is, unless you also argue that sometimes its acceptable to be a murderer. But that would require its completely own argument and one I don't think anyone is up to the task for.

Good point. If "murder" is merely a legal term, then it doesn't really matter. However as a moral term, I shall simply define it as "killing without just cause", like self-defense or euthanasia. 

If the killing of children born of rape, incest, miscegenation, and crippling birth defects is all euthanasia, then my argument is consistent though I am sure there will be those that disagree with me at least in part. I'm more interested in disagreements of substance rather than form. 

[Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?]

Based on the NAP, all forms of infanticide is murder, and therefore a better label for "pro-choice" is "pro-Infanticide", or "anti-life". 

I would consider the following scenarios to be exceptional

1: Rape: For obvious reasons.

2: Incest: Also obvious. 

3: Miscegenation: Not obvious; mainly because I consider it immoral to purposely downgrade from an established gene pool. Exceptions to this would be Eurasians and other groups with similar IQ levels.

4: Knowledge of retardation or other crippling birth defects: I consider it immoral to force someone who is crippled to live in a world where only the fit may thrive. Mere survival is not really living, and is a curse for those without the ability to improve their situation. 

My argument for 3 and 4 go something like this: IQ is highly correlated with quality life and character; therefore anything that would significantly diminish IQ should  be treated the same as if trying to fester crime and agony. 

I am  not 100% on these positions and am welcome to any arguments against this, as I can't and won't bar someone or force someone to do something I am morally unsure of, except in cases 1 and 2 where it is black and white. 

[What to Do for the West?]

8 hours ago, bohemund said:

I don't think you can list bullet points as a guide on 'what to do to save western civilization'

For example not consuming alcohol or finishing school (Which I disagree with) may help you personally lead a better life, but in the context of saving an entire civilization and destroying the welfare state; it won't do much. In fact in the case of finishing school you'd be hurting your own cause. 

You seem to be simplifying a very complex thing (human life which is complicated already) multiply it by the thousands of cultures, hundreds of millions of people, that consist of the West, into a bullet point list. 

I have a suggestion. 

If you want to save the west, make yourself the best western man you can be. That way, instead of telling people what you think they should be doing... They'll ask you what you did to be the human titan that you are. 

Women will tell you how lucky your wife must be to be with you. Men will ask you what you did to be so successful. Kids will want to be just like you when they grow up. 

Your words will have gravitas, and if your way of life is successful, it will replicate itself and spread.  

 

Very good point. I'm endeavoring to follow my own advice and make myself the best man possible, not just for the West but for myself, my future wife, and my future descendants. 

I know it's not an original point, but the "become the example that inspires the rest" argument is a very strong one, since we tend to emulate those who are successful (like Stef for example) rather than those who talk about it (like maybe the version of Stef that didn't make a philosophy show but talked about making one, only to stumble upon FDR and be like "why didn't I do it sooner?").

[Why not do the obvious... in regards to marriage]

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

In Saudi Arabia you could buy a wife with camels.

Really? Damn. I know I'm ignorant of Arabian/Muslim culture when I didn't know a guy could literally buy a wife with money or goods....

[Why not do the obvious... in regards to marriage]

4 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

If I was a valuable woman worth having children with, I would drop your ass if you came to me with a proposal like this.

Why? If the idea is to disarm the coercive powers a woman could wield legally, then it should be understood as a self-preservation move similar to how if a woman keeps a gun hidden in her purse, she's keeping it in case a bad guy tries something. 

You could argue lack of trust, but if I were a woman, while I would be immensely flattered by a man willing to risk everything on my whim, I would also be somewhat frustrated because that tells me he isn't very wise. However I suppose the deciding factor is whether the positive gained from being the recipient of trust outweighs the negatives of being stupid enough to pointlessly risk oneself when precautions could be taken.

I wouldn't want a man who takes pointless risks "as a gesture", because what if he risks something I am not in control of and am negatively affected by it? What if he invests in risky stocks and loses big? Is careless with the kids? Etc. etc. imagine the negative implications of a guy who takes pointless risks. 

I'm not saying not getting legally married is a safeguard from the negatives of divorce, I am saying that mitigating possible negatives is a sign of intelligence and caution from a man that ought to appeal to a wise and empathetic woman. 

After all, if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't blame my potential wife if she took all kinds of legal stuff to make sure I don't cast her off in favor of another woman etc. etc. since the legal courts are, as far as I know, very anti-female like the courts are anti-male here in America and Europe. 

So, based on what I figure, and I could be missing your point, why would you be insulted if I rejected legal marriage in favor of de facto marriage with legal shields? 

 

[UK General Election 2017 - I called it!]

Apparently in order to escape a harem, the Brits need the Sultan's permission. 

I don't understand why they don't just circle their infamous warships around Great Britain and tell the rapefugees and EU reps to "*Bleep* Off".

Well, I guess mainly for fear of losing popular opinion, but I have never known a strong and effective ruler to give a damn about popular opinion during-the-fact. 

Putin's popularity is not because he treads carefully based on opinion polls, but rather delivers great results.

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

20 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

No, no, medical included. It might actually be the biggest offender of wasting taxpayer money. The medicine we use today is almost exactly the same as the medicine we used 100 years ago.

Ahh...government programs. Can't you just smell the progress? I'll take your word for it since I'm not interested enough to do my own research, nor knowledgeable enough to recognize truth from fiction in the medical world. 

20 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

1000$ controls about 1 million $ in the forex market. If the value of the dollar goes up by 0.0001 cents you earn about 100$.

 

Ahh...gambling. Since the stock market is apparently completely unpredictable, I'll assume the forex market is as well. I can't say I'm betting positively on fiat currency, especially over the long run.

[Reason For Being]

What is your "reason for being?" Why are you alive, as opposed to not alive? What do you strive for? Do you strive for anything beyond momentary pleasures? If so, what? How do you know it's worthwhile? Why do you want it in the first place? What value am I to society? Why do I care about my value? How do I know this is in fact my value? 

These are all questions I regularly ask myself, and while I have my own answers: I am alive because I like living more than not; I strive to build a family; I want to build a good family because I came from a terrible one; and I think it will be worthwhile because it works for Stef.  I consider my language skills to be, essentially, my only real skill as, besides my ability to speak and write, I am a very plain person with only a layman's wisdom in any of the various fields I study--history, philosophy, self-knowledge, creative work, etc.--and therefore without my language skills I am not "special".

And then there's that question; "Why do I have to be special?" My answer: I don't know, but I think I have to be special because I despise everything that is ordinary and mundane, and if I am mundane and ordinary, I must hate myself. 

These questions, I'm asking, for both personal and professional reasons. I want to know why people live. I want to know why you live. The reason being, I want to compare myself to others in order to gauge my own value relative to others who have signaled a desire for self-knowledge and self-reform by making themselves regulars of FDR. Also, I want to know more about superior people. Superior being defined as "willing and actively seeking self-improvement and evolution; as compared to inferior people who are wrongfully content with who they are. Wrongful content being determined based on the economic value and the depth of relationships one has." Therefore "right contentment" would be a millionaire following UPB and NAP along the same lines as Stef. He can be content because he has proven himself a man of quality, and established himself and his progeny above the masses.

Asking again: What is your reason for being? You don't have to answer all the other questions, but I'd appreciate it if you did and shared how you determined your reason for being. After all, I'm not entirely sure if it is right for me to have this mindset that people should have a reason for being at all. 

[What to Do for the West?]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Could you give us some details?

1. This is a very interesting topic you touched on. It is not ethnicity that makes allies of nations, nor is it really history. It is IDEOLOGY. I wrote that in capital because in the field of geopolitics, the ideology factor is often ignored. Ideology is the biggest factor that makes and breaks allies; not ethnicity, not money, not interests, not even geography.
I could write a book on this, because it is so interesting, but I think this is a bit off topic for the thread.

It is established that in general, morality trumps ethnicity. The Thirty Years' War having a prime example (as well as having counter example) of this, as Germans were fighting other Germans (an example), while the French were fighting other Catholics (a counter-example), and the Danes and Swedes, historical rivals, were united against Austrian-German supremacy over the Baltic sea region (another counter-example). 

Does morality always trump ethnicity? Sometimes, it appears, survival trumps all. If the French Catholics had joined the Holy Roman Empire's Catholic League, then the Thirty Years' War would have ended very differently, instead they chose to fight them for both national sovereignty and to curb the power of the Kaiser, as well as make allies with the Protestant rebels. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. No, not all Romanians were dominated by Muslims. A Romanian is someone who speaks Romanian as a native tongue. Transylvanians are genetically closer to the Slavs than Vlachs, and yet they are Romanians. Their ethnicity is determined by their language. Same goes for Hungarians, Finns, Germans, as they are genetically indistinguishable from their closest neighbours. A Swiss however is someone who lives by the Swiss constitution, and the same goes for an American. Makes sense, right?

Yes, and no. While self-identification plays a big role, I'd argue that it playing an entire role is only accurate for countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg, both very small and historically not really countries (defining it as a nation, or group of genetically similar states, like the former French Kingdoms, and the former German States), as they're both mixed to the point of becoming an independent ethnic group as well as historically pulled around in a tug-of-war long and often enough to not have any special loyalty, collectively at least, to their neighbors.

America is very different. Historically an American is a W.A.S.P.: A White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and this became the big definition for citizens while countrymen were mostly German Protestants. I being a German Catholic am not really an American by historical standards, but closer than most other ethnic-groups because I am genetically a German and closer to the original WASPs that founded America than say, a Negro. 

"What is an American?" and to some degree the old German question "What is the American Fatherland?" are very real questions as both cultural and racial identities among native Americans has been slashed to the point where if we identify as Americans and give a definition for an American beyond "muh magic soil", then we're "wayciss".

I wouldn't call the Constitution to be the foundation of Americanism, because it is a "living document", i.e., it has no moral weight nor long-term consistency. Free Speech and Private Arms may both be abolished if the wrong person becomes the President, even though both are long-held principles of the American race. 

I'd argue an America is either A: A WASP with four great-grandparents who were born in America; B: A WASP with two grandparents born here, with all the associated English/American values of hard work, innovation, and anal retention (not always the best of our traits, but a defining one); C: A Saxon (or something close to it, like a Prussian or Dutchman) with two born grandparents and assimilated to the historical culture of WASPyness (no disrespect, since had proven itself the greatest culture ever); or D: Americans are Pan-Aryan: I.e., if it's White, it's an American-potential, all that's missing is WASP values.

I'd argue the last definition is de facto what an American is, however I don't think there are any "Americans" in spirit anymore since White culture has been made practically illegal and even though this country was partially founded on White Nationalism, we have to fight tooth and nail for our ethnic sovereignty and to purge the Fatherland of looters and invaders. 

To say "What is an American" is both a touchy and very personal question, is to underestimate the potency and power of it today. 100 years ago an American was a WASP, and the Irish, Germans, and Italians were all just "minorities". After intermixing, by the 50's, American became a hybrid of these three things. With laws and guilt trips aplenty since, American became merely a piece of paper. Now the Prophet Mohammed himself could be an American if he so desired! 

I'm curious as to what you think of our hunger for an identity (in fact I think the reason a lot of American youths like myself seek out White nationalism is in order to have an identity more than anything) and how similar (or not) that is to what happened with Yugoslavia?

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. I think I get your point. That said, I do not agree with that point. The threat of divorce creates distrust between spouses, not security. And unless you can show me that spouses work more on their marriages when divorce is on the table, I will not agree.
To be honest, the threat of divorce is exactly that - a threat, it is coersion. "If you behave that way, then I will leave you and good luck raising 5 kids on your own" or "If you behave that way, I will leave and break your heart". This is absolutely wrong and impractical for a society. When you say your vows, you swear to be by their side no matter what, even if they sink into a deep depression and drink themselves to paralysis. Such backbone is what the West was built on.

"If you steal my bread, I'll  hit you with a stick." Is that coercion? If so, then coercion can be good. If not, then the threat of divorce (unspoken in general, spoken when a marital promise was broken) isn't coercion. 

Marriage is founded on promises like a business contract; if one of those promises is "I promise to never be a deadbeat", then the wife has every reason to threaten divorce if the husband is a deadbeat. Likewise if "I promise to never be a bitch" is a part of the contract, then vice versa. However what ought to be on a marriage contract is "I promise to make it work, at least until our youngest is married, because it is forever, if I have children since it's no longer just a deal between two people, but a deal involving helpless dependents", because like I wrote, it is supposed to be "forever", so long as the promises are kept.

 

 

 

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

4 minutes ago, S1988 said:

In your ideal world, how do you plan to deal with those with mental retardation?

Charity. I don't know what's right, but I do know forcing people to pay for retards isn't. While I may be more eugenics inclined, I can't say I'd be willing to force someone to make such a draconian decision. Therefore I'd let people responsible for the retarded and charities make these decisions. 

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

5 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Are you familiar with Nassim Nicholas Taleb? He's one of those true geniuses. In one of his books he criticizes science and scientists as pointless people. Specifically those that have a PhD or work in academia. The example he give kinda gave me a shock and kinda disenchanted me with the whole idea of research, me wanting to be a researcher and all: Picture how many scientists passed through the gates of airports or train stations going to one conference or another, carrying their luggage from place to place, discussing science stuff since the dawn of science until 1970 and it was just some luggage salesman that thought of putting wheels on those damned heavy suitcases. How much taxpayer money is being poured into research and how much return on investment are the taxpayers seeing? If I were to snap my fingers and make all the astrophysicists in the world disappear, would we even notice? What about nurses, would anyone notice if all the nurses in the world disappeared, or as many nurses as there are astrophysicists disappeared?

Yeah, I remember Stefpai mentioning in an old podcast about how useless and pointless most scientific research is today, to the point of it being mere hobbyist.

I can't say I'm familiar with Taleb. 

I can say though that unfortunately most branches of science that isn't directly medical or martial is...largely irrelevant. I wouldn't want to force people to fund anything, therefore I am principle against the way science works today. However I can't say what science is valuable or mere hobbyist because I know I am extremely ignorant--borderline retarded even--as far as science is concerned, 

Give me a political machine: I can dissect it. Give me science? I din done not know what I is readin!

5 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

I also got really into forex trading at some point but Taleb cured me of that idea too. 

Based on a glance of a google search, currency exchanging right? Basically the idea is to "buy" a currency while it's low, then sell when it's high? I can't imagine the profit margins being very high, unless very large sums of money was being traded.

5 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Fair enough.

Yet at the same time, I can't say I 100% agree with my own statement because not all stupid people are evil or willfully blind. That, and frankly I have a strange pain in my chest when I say this sort of thing aloud. My self-doubt is why I don't want to be mistaken for an expert.

5 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Biologically speaking you're wrong.

Yeah, I know.

5 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Practically speaking that would cut the "human" population by half.

I know that too. Most biological humans, counting all 6 (or is it 7?) billion, are disgusting and parasitical savages, with only a billion being civilized, and among them most are mere sheep compared the builders and directors of society. However not all sheep are bad, in fact I'd argue some herds are actually pretty decent. 

America has a huge demographic problem, not to mention a huge cultural and governmental problem, among other things. Cutting the bottom 50% of my nation's population would free the top 50% from their oppressive and blood-sucking shackles, allowing the nation to perhaps become the NatCap paradise of our dreams. 

Or not. The Jews have such high IQs thanks to losing the stupid among them over the course of centuries, however I don't know if the Jews would rather there be more, even if that lowers the IQ average, Jews or keep it small and smart.

I'd prefer small and smart with NAP and UPB principles imparted, as it would eventually result in big and smart, and therefore invincible and utopian by historical standards. 

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

Just now, S1988 said:

People with Down Syndrome or autism.

What do you think my answer is going to be, after I gave a lot of venom about low IQ people and tax parasites? 

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

Just now, S1988 said:

Even those with disabilities?

Like...?

[Why one woman instead of many?]

Mainly for 3 reasons, at least that come to mind.

1: It is in our nature to only really care about children born of us. If a woman were to raise children that were not her own alongside children that were her own, then she would naturally treat that child with less care than her own biological offspring, and that would negatively impact the child who would most likely become jealous of the biological children. Then there is the possibility of the woman abusing children not born of her, or otherwise treating them badly, especially relative to her own biological children.

2:The Children themselves would have a hard time respecting the authority of their non-biological mothers, and chances are with competing women there will most likely be friction among the children and lack of respect for maternal authority. 

3: A man can love more than one woman, but not without dividing his attention and loyalties. Should one wife make an ultimatum about another wife, the man must choose between them or else lose them both.

Over all, it's a time bomb waiting to explode. Culturally, if you want to see the success and lack thereof for polygamy, see the Islamic, Hindu, and Himalayan (where women marrying multiple men was common until they went effectively extinct) nations. 

[What to Do for the West?]

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Ethnicity is complicated, and has vague definitions at times, so I don't expect to win this argument. Naturally, interbreeding was never rare among europeans, and you are right that Hungarians haven't got much on common with their ancient ancestors by now. That however does not matter. Traditionally, we have always grouped Hungarians, Estonians and Finns in the Altaic family. Genetically, Hungarians are about 45% Slavic, 40% German, and only about 5% Mongolic, but we still don't consider them slavic. For a more extreme example, Slovenians are more than 70% Italian, yet we do consider them Slavic. 

Interesting. I guess self-identification and culture will have to matter more since I don't think Eastern Europe is doing anything productive by excluding potential allies from whatever defensive or mutually beneficial circles would otherwise be created by an ethnically homogenous population.

Ethnicity is essentially defined as being larger than a family or group of families (think town), and smaller than race (think Germans, Slavs, etc.). However my definition isn't necessarily someone else's definition. I'd argue Prussian, Bavarian, and Austrian would be separate ethnicities due to a combination of genetic differences (slight but different enough to be distinct), cultural differences (also slight but different enough) and historical rivalry.

However I can't say I know how many ethnic groups there are, using this definition, for say, Russia. 

The fact it's more confusing for Slavs I imagine has to do with why they've/you've failed to unite as a race while Germans have managed to unite about half of historical Germany as one nation. Similar for Poland and the Ukraine (both of which I'd argue are sub-sets of Slav, similar to Prussians and Bavarians being sub-sets of German).

But...all this is largely abstract. De facto people are as compatible as they think they are multiplied by how compatible they actually are. Prussians and Bavarians are pretty similar, and think they're pretty similar. Russians and Ukrainians are pretty similar, but think they're different enough that they ought to be separated.

However I wouldn't argue this very far, since my own ignorance as to the details of their affairs and their history makes me a poor judge of them.

 

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Moldovans are Romanians. Thats all to it.

Then there's "what's a Romanian?". From what I understand; White people who used to live under Islamic rule. 

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

You are pretty much correct about the Russian muslims, however, the Muslims of the Caucasus have been terrorising the Russians since the 80s. Ever heard of Chechnia, Dagestan?

Yeah but both are frontier states whereas Kazan is about as deep-Russia as you can get. Hypothetically Putin could Build a Wall around the Russian Caucasian border and ignore them for all eternity like China did (mostly successfully) with the Mongolians (until Genghis came around. Don't want to repeat that history).

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. All of the countries above will be spared not because of their geographical location, but because of their strong border security. For instance, when it comes to the open borders debate, Luxembourg is the biggest hypocrite of them all. Go and see how many muslims live in Luxembourg.... I'll wait. You can bet that as soon as the ship hits the fan, not even a fly will be able to get into Luxembourg.

I don't know much, but I do know Luxembourg was historically a super-fortress held by many different kingdoms and empires over its history until it was made into an independent city-state sometime after the founding of the German Empire.

I'm curious as to what's going on.

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. I kindof lost you on this point. So are you saying that the action of divorce is good or bad? I am not arguing legality, nor practicality, but morality on the part of a K-selected man.
 

I'd say the threat of divorce is practically good, and but morally dark-gray. I consider it evil to enable bad behavior, therefore if a spouse is bad than divorce is a moral imperative.

Children make this complicated, as it is no longer a dispute between two people. I'd argue divorce should be delayed until the youngest child is married and effectively independent of their parents.

However I'd still argue it to be morally negative since a moral/life crime must have been committed for it to be a real possibility as compared to a "stick" for the r's.

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

1 hour ago, Wuzzums said:

Societies are built and kept by people with IQ's between 90 to 120 (this covers professions from garbage men to doctors). Above and below are where the dangerous parasites lie.

Below, yes. I wouldn't call anyone with an IQ below 90 even human.

Above? The people that invent and innovate are the geniuses, and the people best able to rule a society of followers are the ones with the highest IQs. Of course whether they rule for themselves, an ideal, or something practical effectively determines whether or not they could be called "parasites" since I think it's fair to say most aristocrats are fundamentally parasites of the lesser peoples, however I have a hard time condemning a genius for manipulating the stupid since the stupid are so easy to manipulate and so historically destructive. 

However all this struggle would end in a mutually beneficial victory for all in AnCap, since the well-intentioned geniuses would produce the most and the geniuses without "noble" intentions would have their ability to cause harm severely curtailed. 

 

Quote

I'm gonna have a new rule for myself. Whenever someone IQ-signals I'm gonna assume it's 100% BS until they prove it by showing off their accomplishments.

Not a bad idea, since it's often better to infer IQ based on merit than take the word of someone who hasn't proof to back up their supposedly large brain cock. 

However language skills is tied heavily to IQ, at least in one particular metric part of it. Therefore eloquence in speech can be a good measure for IQ short of grand achievement. 

 

 

 

 

 

[High IQ but struggle to understand concepts and ideas]

54 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Ok, ok, ok... everyone please stop this right now. I've noticed this little trend coming up these past weeks.

Let's not turn the whole IQ conversation into a IQ-signaling circle-jerk like we're fucking Mensa or something. C'mon, guys, we're better than that !

Hmm... You're giving me ideas.... 

IQ is basically a smart man's cock after all. We compensate for our small penises and inability to handle monotony and social conformity with grandiosity and a hyper-charged brain cock with which we build and destroy societies. 

Whose brain cock is the biggest???

[Constitutional changes and Amendments I would like to see]

I'd amend the constitution to both abolish the voting system and all regulations/restrictions on business and non-violent non-abusive crimes, and have the system completely rearranged into a dynastic Empire, for about a century until the American populace can handle anarcho-capitalism without turning it into communism. 

[The mind-body problem]

4 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

We are puppets of ourselves, for it is our free choices that God uses to craft the seamless whole of the world.  All that is lacking is our ability to create action, rather we can will action which God, being good and unable to deceive, then correlates to our willing.

You are suggesting humans are dominoes.

The theory may be A submits request to God for B to happen, but something (Z) must have pushed A into doing that, and then logically there must be a Y to request for Z to do that, etc.

 

4 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

 Thus if I steal your shoes, the actual action of theft is God's, who is honouring my will-to-steal.

If you have stolen my shoes, the fault lies with you.

4 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

 Pairwise interaction happens as if through direct causation, but in fact all pairwise interaction occurs in terms of each particle's relationship to the universe as a whole as determined by God.  You are not a puppet, but a star, who is the fate of yourself.  You decided to do what you are doing in aeternity and are living out the consequences of your own decisions in the temporal world.  You are not helpless, a leaf in the wind, so long as you situate yourself in terms of aeternity and not fall into the trap of fatalism.

God is not to blame.

In this theory God is the dictator of actions, therefore all cause and effect is his fault because only he can make anything happen. We do not blame domino 26 for knocking down domino 27, nor the finger that knocked down domino 1, but rather the ghost in the machine that willed the action.

In your theory, God is the ghost in the machine and everything else are the dominoes. 

4 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God is merely giving you the consequences of what you have  willed, which is all you can, ultimately, do.  Thus, your real existence is not in the temporal world, but in the aeternal, as a willing soul, akin not to a fish but to an angel. . .

This is all merely pretty language meant to state that all of mankind is a series of whims on the part of God, who himself holds no responsibility for his whims, because somehow his whims have lives of their own, while also not having lives of their own because there is no free will due to God dictating everything, and yet there somehow is....

This is logically a circle without end. The theory that God alone has free will at least isn't a fallacy of logic. However if under this theory even God is without agency because he's merely reacting to his own whims, then no one has agency and therefore chaos. 

I can't even begin to describe the level of offense this theory has built into either, for this suggests that the achievements of all good people are not their own, for only God dictates them, and all the crimes of bad people are not of their own choice, for only God allows them. 

Then all responsibility is striped from mortal and immortal alike, in a deterministic circular logic fallacy. 

 

My question is where did you get this idea from? Why does it matter to you? And do you have any proof that the world is a deterministic circular logic fallacy?